"I do think that private companies, regulated by the state provide the best service."
I lack your confidence:).
"Trust me, state held monopolies aren't that keen on lowering their prices."
Neither are privately held monopolies.
It all depends on the State and the private company doesn't it?
Many state held monopolies are forced by the state to have low prices to keep people happy/quiet. In the UK many have complained that the bus service became worse after it was privatised.
There are very many private companies. A small percentage of them are good companies, most are just average, and the rest are bad/evil.
My guess is the same goes for government departments, however with government departments you usually only get one of them in each area - so you don't have alternative choices if service is mediocre or even bad.
Privatising something is often done when a gov dept badly handles it. Then you hand it over to one or more companies. So obviously that would make privatising look better.
There have been a number of cases in my country where the private company actually does a worse job and the government has to take the stuff back.
So far it seems like you just have to reset the system every now and then so that the crap/evil that gets to the top get booted out, and more decent people get a chance. Otherwise the crap/evil will just stay there till they die/retire or you get lucky.
If you don't mind using polarized glasses- one eye vertical, one eye horizontal, then you only need two.
Have a screen at the bottom of the display, and one at the back of the display and a half-way mirror/beam splitter reflecting the bottom screen to your eyes.
Oh I'm fine if the government/whoever has the power to know where I (and everyone else) goes.
As long as I also get the same power to know where everyone including the government/whoever goes.
Everyone gets to watch everyone. Fair eh?
Want to make fun of my habits and post embarassing pictures of me here and there? Fine, let's go see who's been watching me, and pull up various video clips of Mr Nosy.
I don't pity the telcos either. But the US ppl have a bad deal and don't know it.
They often serve and worship Capitalism (blindly). Whereas capitalism should be serving them. (same for their "Democracy").
The fact that US CEOs and other members of the US ruling class (like politicians) can say such stupid things doesn't usually mean they are stupid. It often means they believe most of the US public is stupid and saying such stuff will be beneficial.
That said, it's too expensive to have full coverage in the USA. It's huge, and not so densely populated. Coverage in cities should be OK. But coverage in sparsely populated suburbs may not be as good.
Thing is competition in such things isn't necessarily such a great idea. Because you have multiple competitors putting money into covering the same areas. Some will cover some areas and some won't. That isn't so efficient.
So sometimes even an inefficient state held monopoly might actually turn out to be more efficient (and provide better service) than 4 private enterprises battling for the same thing.
Sure you can put in artificial rules to try and make the private enterprise do stuff you want. But it's not all as rosy as some "capitalism" advocates say.
Yes but any _decent_ white hat tool can't ignore the banner. It should say whether it's relying on the banner or not.
Because it usually isn't _safe_ to try every exploit. Many exploits will DoS the target if successful.
A real security consultant will go through the report which nessus or some other scanner produces, and then summarize and highlight critical stuff (like trivial passwords).
You know about 192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x and 172.17.x.x private IPs?
I've been trying to get ICANN to officially reserve a TLD for _free_ _private_ use.
e.g. *.here
Then everyone who owns a network gets to define names in.here. like airconditioner.here. what.here who.here where.here or just plain here.
IMO that'll be more useful than stupid stuff like info and biz. Which are just Yet Another.Com. TLD.
Then it'll be easier to have defacto standards for accessing stuff in various _locations_ e.g. go to a cafe with a controllable jukebox, http://jukebox.here/ and you'd be able to select songs.
http://here/ and you could learn more about the free wireless access you are using and the terms and conditions (sure you can do part of that by nocatauth but then people have to remember your URL or how to return to it after they clicked OK to browse), whereas http://here/ is simpler.
IBM probably has 1000x more patents than a typical small company (25000+ total?). They register 3000+ patents a year. What are the odds the small company infringes on/needs IBM's patents to just do what it does - especially if software patents are included? 100%?
You little guy can invent something, but IBM can come along and force you to cross license it. And you better smile and pretend you like it.
The fact that IBM says this sucks is something worth noting. They are currently the leader in the number of patents. I don't see them losing their lead anytime soon, unless the patent system changes. Because their scientists/researchers don't have to worry about legal issues, they just go do their stuff.
Whereas small companies can and do get slowed down by such issues - even if they do take the "better not to know" tactic - they have very little "shielding" unlike IBM - look at SCO vs IBM - it has had minimal impact on IBM's technical people. I wonder even if IBM's legal people are having _fun_ with that case.
Small company invents 5 new things. Gets 20 patents.
Big Company with 3000 patents, goes to small company and says: "Sure we need 10 of your patents but you infringe on 200 of our patents", starting from "best way to draw line from x1,y1 to x2,y2".
Small company cross licenses with Big Company and possibly even pays Big Company (because they are in a weaker position).
It's a total mess already anyway. What's the difference?
If a child isn't following the latest pop stars and drinking lots of cola by age 9, then he or she is probably attending some weird cult's school... Or being home schooled by some militia group.;)
Re:Can Dell do spec AMD systems today?
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Just go do it for fun...
After all Dell said if enough customers demand it...
And actually I think Dell do listen. After all they brought back some call handling to US from India after there were complaints. In contrast HP has done like what?
Just in this case I think Dell have got a really really sweet deal with Intel. So they'll see how much they can squeeze Intel. And then they'll go do the figures and then the rest of us can go try guess how sweet the deal was and the next deal is...
Re:They just want better pricing from Intel
on
Dell Might do AMD
·
· Score: 1
It's likely the cost savings for _Dell_ using AMD vs Intel aren't that great.
I'm sure there's a very good reason Dell is Intel only. They probably have a very sweet deal.
Anyway it's interesting to watch Dell haggle:). Maybe they're working out the terms of their new deal with Intel...
Going to be fun to watch. Would be more fun if we knew more behind the scenes;).
Uh. When I was handing Sniffer (Network General/McAfee) products in those days (was in a company that was a dealer/reseller in the 90s), it's nearly a policy to NEVER attach a sniffer to a customer's network for demo (e.g. presales demo).
NEVER do that. Because:
1) If you see confidential data, stuff hits the fan. You can't "unsee" secrets. 2) If you find problems, 2.1) the prospect often wants to you to help fix it for free - and it's _presales_. 2.2) the prospect often gets distracted from the sales.
Someone should have told your buddy this stuff. It was in the Sniffer presales training or something. Looks like the HP training was different?;)
If you explain 1) to the prospect as why you are doing analysis on canned data they are usually quite understanding. Often that's one thing they learn from the presales - "you mean pop3, emails etc all can be seen?". Well that was in the days where switches weren't as common...
Heh. Well your buddy's story is a good anecdote to use if someone needs to explain 1) to a prospect... Hehe.
Ah, but I heard that some modern compilers only remove the loop if it doesn't loop that many times (don't know exact figures). If it loops many times they leave it in.
Because some programmer may be using the loop as a quick and dirty delay.
That's what I heard anyway, haven't bothered testing that.
Eat the burger, skip the fizzy sugar water AND if possible skip the fries?
My bet is the sugar water + fries is the really unhealthy part. Sure you might need to add another burger in order to feel satisfied, but that'll be at most 40/week, and it should be healthier.
Sure the bread is refined flour, but in comparison fries = starch+fat, and cola = tons of sugar in solution. And somehow it doesn't make you feel like munching and munching unlike fries (and the sugar drinks aren't really effective at quenching thirst )
So: try skipping the sugar drinks and sticking to just water.
That cuts a fair bit of calories PLUS it stops all that sugar from smacking into your bloodstream.
Think about it: all that sugar water will often go through your intestines pretty fast, and then it'll hit your blood stream.
Once there, your body has to either: 1) Leave it in your blood = diabetes 2) Remove it from your blood by either a) converting it to fat = obesity b) excreting it out via your kidneys = usually diabetes or kidney probs. c) burn it as fuel - this is unlikely given the amounts people in the US drink.
So if you drink sweet drinks or eat sweet stuff many times a day don't be surprised your health suffers. It's probably OK once in a while as a treat.
There was also a guy who lost quite a lot of weight just eating subway sandwiches.
AFAIK in Germany the autobahns don't have speed limits (on clear days).
So travelling at 100+mph isn't illegal there.
I'm not sure why the German car manufacturers put speed limiters on their cars, but they did. PR I guess.
Not sure that a crash at 150mph in some of these cars will be fatal. I heard one of those writers for a car mag walked away from a crash of a VW at 100mph with a stationary car. No injuries IIRC.
He was probably travelling too close (way too close) to the car in front, and the car in front suddenly swerved to the side and there was the stationary car...
If you're in one of those s-class mercs and smack into a small car at 150mph, I think you have a good chance of surviving. Not sure about the occupants of the small car though...
BTW here's my tip for luggage: 1) Try not to keep really valuable stuff in your luggage. 2) If you don't want your luggage to be "lost"/put on the "wrong flight": a) Don't make the contents appear strange in a luggage scanner - don't put stuff inside stuff or things like that, or put clocks in metallic containers... b) Don't make it too hard to crack open.
Otherwise: 1+2a) people will want to crack open your luggage to find out/get what's inside.
2b) They may run out of time trying to break into it (legally or illegally), and delay it for the next flight (or take it all).
It's just conjecture, but why else would they need 2-3 hour checkins for int'l flights;). A lot of bags to sift through and open...
Maybe one could make a resealable hole in luggage so that the snoops can poke around with an optic fibre camera and see what's inside.
Slashdot Mirror
"I do think that private companies, regulated by the state provide the best service."
:).
I lack your confidence
"Trust me, state held monopolies aren't that keen on lowering their prices."
Neither are privately held monopolies.
It all depends on the State and the private company doesn't it?
Many state held monopolies are forced by the state to have low prices to keep people happy/quiet. In the UK many have complained that the bus service became worse after it was privatised.
There are very many private companies. A small percentage of them are good companies, most are just average, and the rest are bad/evil.
My guess is the same goes for government departments, however with government departments you usually only get one of them in each area - so you don't have alternative choices if service is mediocre or even bad.
Privatising something is often done when a gov dept badly handles it. Then you hand it over to one or more companies. So obviously that would make privatising look better.
There have been a number of cases in my country where the private company actually does a worse job and the government has to take the stuff back.
So far it seems like you just have to reset the system every now and then so that the crap/evil that gets to the top get booted out, and more decent people get a chance. Otherwise the crap/evil will just stay there till they die/retire or you get lucky.
If you don't mind using polarized glasses- one eye vertical, one eye horizontal, then you only need two.
Have a screen at the bottom of the display, and one at the back of the display and a half-way mirror/beam splitter reflecting the bottom screen to your eyes.
e.g.
| / -->eyes
|/__
Oh I'm fine if the government/whoever has the power to know where I (and everyone else) goes.
As long as I also get the same power to know where everyone including the government/whoever goes.
Everyone gets to watch everyone. Fair eh?
Want to make fun of my habits and post embarassing pictures of me here and there? Fine, let's go see who's been watching me, and pull up various video clips of Mr Nosy.
Uh. AFAIK there's a lot more cheap memory around than cheap developers doing cool stuff that's cheap/free.
:).
Of course there are developers doing worms/viruses that's free
Well I think it's best for the cars that can't stay at the speed limit to stick to the slowest lane.
That way the impatient folk who want to get somewhere fast legally can pick the middle/fast lane.
And the really impatient folk can pick the fastest lane.
I don't pity the telcos either. But the US ppl have a bad deal and don't know it.
They often serve and worship Capitalism (blindly). Whereas capitalism should be serving them. (same for their "Democracy").
The fact that US CEOs and other members of the US ruling class (like politicians) can say such stupid things doesn't usually mean they are stupid. It often means they believe most of the US public is stupid and saying such stuff will be beneficial.
That said, it's too expensive to have full coverage in the USA. It's huge, and not so densely populated. Coverage in cities should be OK. But coverage in sparsely populated suburbs may not be as good.
Thing is competition in such things isn't necessarily such a great idea. Because you have multiple competitors putting money into covering the same areas. Some will cover some areas and some won't. That isn't so efficient.
So sometimes even an inefficient state held monopoly might actually turn out to be more efficient (and provide better service) than 4 private enterprises battling for the same thing.
Sure you can put in artificial rules to try and make the private enterprise do stuff you want. But it's not all as rosy as some "capitalism" advocates say.
Uh. That's capitalism at work. Because it's not as profitable to cover the entire country, as it is to cover just selected portions.
That's why your socialist country has to force the telcos to cover your country.
It doesn't benefit the telcos - they actually make less money than they would if they covered a smaller and more profitable area.
But it arguably benefits the country as a whole. It's a bit like building roads to small villages. And street lighting.
Yes but any _decent_ white hat tool can't ignore the banner. It should say whether it's relying on the banner or not.
Because it usually isn't _safe_ to try every exploit. Many exploits will DoS the target if successful.
A real security consultant will go through the report which nessus or some other scanner produces, and then summarize and highlight critical stuff (like trivial passwords).
Maybe the copyright owner should be compensated (_depends_), but so what if owners of copies see the value of their copies reduced.
Are you saying that if I buy a copy of a book and someone makes cheaper copies of the book, then I should be compensated?
That's weird man. Weird.
.here
.here. like airconditioner.here. what.here who.here where.here or just plain here.
.Com. TLD.
h ere-01.txt
You know about 192.168.x.x, 10.x.x.x, 172.16.x.x and 172.17.x.x private IPs?
I've been trying to get ICANN to officially reserve a TLD for _free_ _private_ use.
e.g. *.here
Then everyone who owns a network gets to define names in
IMO that'll be more useful than stupid stuff like info and biz. Which are just Yet Another
Then it'll be easier to have defacto standards for accessing stuff in various _locations_ e.g. go to a cafe with a controllable jukebox, http://jukebox.here/ and you'd be able to select songs.
http://here/ and you could learn more about the free wireless access you are using and the terms and conditions (sure you can do part of that by nocatauth but then people have to remember your URL or how to return to it after they clicked OK to browse), whereas http://here/ is simpler.
See internet-draft:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-yeoh-tld
Alternate: http://www.circleid.com/print/540_0_1_0/
Stable is good. I like stable.
But when software lacks functions you need or has (nonsecurity) issues solved in later versions, then it's annoying.
This is especially so with desktop software- UI often needs a bit of work.
Question: how does it do the IV?
I've looked at their cert, it doesn't say much. All that shows is their module is doing AES.
But, if it always encrypts each block with the same key and the same IV you're kinda screwed.
From the article IBM makes 1.2 billion from patent royalties.
So I think cost of registering is not a problem for them. Go do the figures.
Those idiots don't get it.
IBM probably has 1000x more patents than a typical small company (25000+ total?). They register 3000+ patents a year. What are the odds the small company infringes on/needs IBM's patents to just do what it does - especially if software patents are included? 100%?
You little guy can invent something, but IBM can come along and force you to cross license it. And you better smile and pretend you like it.
The fact that IBM says this sucks is something worth noting. They are currently the leader in the number of patents. I don't see them losing their lead anytime soon, unless the patent system changes. Because their scientists/researchers don't have to worry about legal issues, they just go do their stuff.
Whereas small companies can and do get slowed down by such issues - even if they do take the "better not to know" tactic - they have very little "shielding" unlike IBM - look at SCO vs IBM - it has had minimal impact on IBM's technical people. I wonder even if IBM's legal people are having _fun_ with that case.
ROFL. Uh isn't that already happening?
Small company invents 5 new things. Gets 20 patents.
Big Company with 3000 patents, goes to small company and says: "Sure we need 10 of your patents but you infringe on 200 of our patents", starting from "best way to draw line from x1,y1 to x2,y2".
Small company cross licenses with Big Company and possibly even pays Big Company (because they are in a weaker position).
It's a total mess already anyway. What's the difference?
In the US, MTV educates every child.
;)
If a child isn't following the latest pop stars and drinking lots of cola by age 9, then he or she is probably attending some weird cult's school... Or being home schooled by some militia group.
Just go do it for fun...
After all Dell said if enough customers demand it...
And actually I think Dell do listen. After all they brought back some call handling to US from India after there were complaints. In contrast HP has done like what?
Just in this case I think Dell have got a really really sweet deal with Intel. So they'll see how much they can squeeze Intel. And then they'll go do the figures and then the rest of us can go try guess how sweet the deal was and the next deal is...
It's likely the cost savings for _Dell_ using AMD vs Intel aren't that great.
:). Maybe they're working out the terms of their new deal with Intel...
;).
I'm sure there's a very good reason Dell is Intel only. They probably have a very sweet deal.
Anyway it's interesting to watch Dell haggle
Going to be fun to watch. Would be more fun if we knew more behind the scenes
Uh. When I was handing Sniffer (Network General/McAfee) products in those days (was in a company that was a dealer/reseller in the 90s), it's nearly a policy to NEVER attach a sniffer to a customer's network for demo (e.g. presales demo).
;)
NEVER do that. Because:
1) If you see confidential data, stuff hits the fan. You can't "unsee" secrets.
2) If you find problems,
2.1) the prospect often wants to you to help fix it for free - and it's _presales_.
2.2) the prospect often gets distracted from the sales.
Someone should have told your buddy this stuff. It was in the Sniffer presales training or something. Looks like the HP training was different?
If you explain 1) to the prospect as why you are doing analysis on canned data they are usually quite understanding. Often that's one thing they learn from the presales - "you mean pop3, emails etc all can be seen?". Well that was in the days where switches weren't as common...
Heh. Well your buddy's story is a good anecdote to use if someone needs to explain 1) to a prospect... Hehe.
yeah, well it's could be a bit "funny" if someone runs a rogue PXE server + does wake on lan...
;).
Could scare someone working in the middle of the night
Ah, but I heard that some modern compilers only remove the loop if it doesn't loop that many times (don't know exact figures). If it loops many times they leave it in.
Because some programmer may be using the loop as a quick and dirty delay.
That's what I heard anyway, haven't bothered testing that.
Yep, but looking at some recent benchmarks, the Pentium M isn't really better than the Athlon 64.
At the higher clock speeds they are about the same, or the Athlon 64 is faster (esp for FPU stuff).
And the Pentium M isn't cheap. Yet.
So it still doesn't make much sense to buy one for desktop/game use. It's great for low power consumption.
Eat the burger, skip the fizzy sugar water AND if possible skip the fries?
My bet is the sugar water + fries is the really unhealthy part. Sure you might need to add another burger in order to feel satisfied, but that'll be at most 40/week, and it should be healthier.
Sure the bread is refined flour, but in comparison fries = starch+fat, and cola = tons of sugar in solution. And somehow it doesn't make you feel like munching and munching unlike fries (and the sugar drinks aren't really effective at quenching thirst )
So: try skipping the sugar drinks and sticking to just water.
That cuts a fair bit of calories PLUS it stops all that sugar from smacking into your bloodstream.
Think about it: all that sugar water will often go through your intestines pretty fast, and then it'll hit your blood stream.
Once there, your body has to either:
1) Leave it in your blood = diabetes
2) Remove it from your blood by either
a) converting it to fat = obesity
b) excreting it out via your kidneys = usually diabetes or kidney probs.
c) burn it as fuel - this is unlikely given the amounts people in the US drink.
So if you drink sweet drinks or eat sweet stuff many times a day don't be surprised your health suffers. It's probably OK once in a while as a treat.
There was also a guy who lost quite a lot of weight just eating subway sandwiches.
AFAIK in Germany the autobahns don't have speed limits (on clear days).
So travelling at 100+mph isn't illegal there.
I'm not sure why the German car manufacturers put speed limiters on their cars, but they did. PR I guess.
Not sure that a crash at 150mph in some of these cars will be fatal. I heard one of those writers for a car mag walked away from a crash of a VW at 100mph with a stationary car. No injuries IIRC.
He was probably travelling too close (way too close) to the car in front, and the car in front suddenly swerved to the side and there was the stationary car...
If you're in one of those s-class mercs and smack into a small car at 150mph, I think you have a good chance of surviving. Not sure about the occupants of the small car though...
BTW here's my tip for luggage:
;). A lot of bags to sift through and open...
1) Try not to keep really valuable stuff in your luggage.
2) If you don't want your luggage to be "lost"/put on the "wrong flight":
a) Don't make the contents appear strange in a luggage scanner - don't put stuff inside stuff or things like that, or put clocks in metallic containers...
b) Don't make it too hard to crack open.
Otherwise:
1+2a) people will want to crack open your luggage to find out/get what's inside.
2b) They may run out of time trying to break into it (legally or illegally), and delay it for the next flight (or take it all).
It's just conjecture, but why else would they need 2-3 hour checkins for int'l flights
Maybe one could make a resealable hole in luggage so that the snoops can poke around with an optic fibre camera and see what's inside.